tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post4472873681335355861..comments2018-11-18T04:30:18.772+00:00Comments on Ian Gent's Blog: The Petrie Multiplier: Why an Attack on Sexism in Tech is NOT an Attack on MenIan Genthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14390523974279353420noreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-92226606474104738202015-08-07T18:57:43.662+01:002015-08-07T18:57:43.662+01:00The analysis at http://www.davidchart.com/2013/10/...The analysis at http://www.davidchart.com/2013/10/20/the-petrie-multiplier/ takes points 1 and 2 into account, and that actually seems to make the situation worse, not better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-29296770471736100702015-05-01T15:11:07.274+01:002015-05-01T15:11:07.274+01:00Well of course in reverse situations the reverse w...Well of course in reverse situations the reverse would be the case, assuming the same scenario as here. It&#39;s just a matter of swapping the two variables&#39; names.<br />Assuming this fixed ratio of sexism within the population would yield similar results for men in, say, education or nursing, as it does for women in tech probably (i&#39;m not familiar with the gender ratio in the US but here in Italy education and nursing are both very female dominated fields).<br /><br />How close to the reality the assumption of a fixed ratio of sexist people actually gets, is still something that can be debated, but it&#39;s surely an interesting thought experiment.<br /><br />What buggs me, however is, that it would suggest that the optimal outcome (in terms of sexism minimization) would be a completely single-gender dominated/isolated field. On the other hand the optimal outcome in terms of fairness (equal distribution of sexism) would be a 1/1 ratio, i.e. 50% women and 50% men.<br /><br />What i&#39;d like to mention, is that this is (i think) not meant to suggest behavior or policies of any kind, it&#39;s however a good demonstration to prove a point i think.<br /><br />btw. chapeau to Joe Ferdette for using landau symbols!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-51756624010245101552015-03-27T22:23:16.495+00:002015-03-27T22:23:16.495+00:00Very interesting theory, thanks for sharing. Here ...Very interesting theory, thanks for sharing. Here are a few thoughts<br /><br />1)<br />Men will not seek women to make sexist remarks. They just happen to do that every X% of the time. That will reach both men and women that are around them, men will likely don&#39;t care, so it only affects the women. <br /><br />2)<br />The more women around the less likely a man will be to make a sexist remark. So the number of sexist remarks should also be skewed towards the dominant group. Which would probably multiply it even further. A company with a majority of women will likely see more sexist remarks from women towards men, this should be verifiable.<br /><br />3)<br />The same can be applied to any other majority/minority relationship. Race, Religion, sexual orientation, programing laguage preference, sports team. So maybe expanding on this to make it less about gender will probably be beneficial. Eduardo Cereto Carvalhohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05133336852612661767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-79984886902464926962015-01-06T12:36:14.112+00:002015-01-06T12:36:14.112+00:00This post really needed to be written, particularl...This post really needed to be written, particularly in light of Gamergate and women in coding! Personal Trainer blokehttp://www.themphmethod.com/about/studios/st-johns-wood-studionoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-8375910917038497032014-12-29T15:30:42.128+00:002014-12-29T15:30:42.128+00:00I&#39;m even later to the party, I came here via V...I&#39;m even later to the party, I came here via Vi Hart&#39;s interactive infographic on squares and triangles, which is making the rounds. I&#39;d just like to make a point that no one has made yet: this model also tells us something about what will not work. <br /><br />&quot;Sensitivity training&quot;-type exercises, even if they should succeed in, say, halving sexism, would only make a small dent in the experienced sexism of a minority. So while this model makes a good case for quotas (or other means of valuing diversity), it also makes a good case against <br /><br />1. individual effort to become less sexist (if you&#39;re even considering it, you&#39;re probably OK anyway)<br /><br />2. Inferring from experiences of sexism from men in tech, that they as a group are sexist. They might be far less sexist than the average man (hell, they might be less sexist than the woman in question), and that would still be compatible with her negative experiences.<br /><br />You can&#39;t really compare taxi driver-style racism, as you do. The sexism of men in the workplace often takes the form of unwanted advances. It&#39;s quite reasonable to think people prone to make unwanted advances DO seek out people they want to make them to, in a way a racist does not seek out a racial minority to insult (although that can happen, too - remember, in the model it doesn&#39;t have to happen often, or be the most common form of racism, it&#39;ll still have a big impact in this model).<br /><br />I do not think your assumption that being a &quot;minority friend&quot; effectively grows the minority under the model&#39;s assumption. If the people making unwanted advances started hitting on you instead, then it would. But I don&#39;t think it works that way ;)Harald Korneliussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909854185625282505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-15824974915473167522014-07-17T06:15:11.700+01:002014-07-17T06:15:11.700+01:00White knighting/chivalry/feminism/foo means a lot ...White knighting/chivalry/feminism/foo means a lot of men are sexist against men though, especially when women are present. Also, there&#39;s a cascade effect when an asshole women ends up with such men as proxies and a strong bias against any targeted man fighting back in any way. Is that just being ignored?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-20796389155536863272014-02-13T18:43:27.605+00:002014-02-13T18:43:27.605+00:00This is brilliant!This is brilliant!Amy Lightholderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02694475943535944546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-57852786400719258912014-02-04T05:37:14.727+00:002014-02-04T05:37:14.727+00:00Regardless of what you consider &#39;sexist&#39;, ...Regardless of what you consider &#39;sexist&#39;, once you establish a definition, the above applies. However, the point of the target audience not being of the gender that&#39;s being discriminated against is a very good one. If anything, personal experience teaches me that speaking with people of the same gender actually increases the odds of hearing sexist remarks. <br /><br />Assuming that these remarks are only made to and offensive to people of the non-target gender is a mistake. However, although the assumption that all genders are equally sexist is fair, at least for the sake of argument - the assumption that everyone is equally offended by sexist remarks, regardless of their own gender, seems a bit far out.<br /><br />Adding to the complexity: in some office subcultures sexism even serves as bonding mechanism and results in peer pressure for others to engage in sexist behavior. I&#39;ve only worked in male majority environment (as I have a job in software development and design), but I assume women in opposite environments would have similar experiences.<br /><br />The basic math of the Petrie Multiplier is sound, but I doubt the model tells us a lot about the actual statistics and experience of sexism - even under a number of generous assumptions.Jaaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994341610652170101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-66884023115006473292014-01-17T08:44:55.142+00:002014-01-17T08:44:55.142+00:00Uh, just modify it to the population at hand. I am...Uh, just modify it to the population at hand. I am one of three female technicians in an area that has four IT teams comprising 50 people in total. I assure you that I have met all those 50 people despite being one of the minority 6%. I&#39;m just fortunate that in that population, the incidence of sexist remarks is extremely low across the board.<br /><br />Also, for those objecting to how sexist people don&#39;t store up their remarks, how about changing the *interval*? A sexist moron will generally manage to average at least one offensive remark a month.Trixhttp://trixtah.dreamwidth.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-66334314799299375952013-11-18T19:22:13.113+00:002013-11-18T19:22:13.113+00:00No. The model is stupid. All subjects receive a li...No. The model is stupid. All subjects receive a limited exposure to the population. Every woman in tech does not encounter every man in tech.<br /><br />Would the only woman in a group of 1,000,000 receive 1,000 times the abuse of the only woman in a group of 1,000?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-5263676092091827282013-11-10T09:20:14.610+00:002013-11-10T09:20:14.610+00:00Thanks Lonny. I think I get it now.
The specific...Thanks Lonny. I think I get it now.<br /><br />The specific maths in the Petrie multiplier is different (i.e. the squaring of the ratio), but yes, people thinking that because sexism is equal in the model, women would experience it equally, is an example of the base rate fallacy. <br /><br />thanks for that.<br />Ian Genthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390523974279353420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-30931097420674753372013-11-09T21:01:42.812+00:002013-11-09T21:01:42.812+00:00Lonny here again.
See Example 3 on the wikipedia ...Lonny here again.<br /><br />See Example 3 on the wikipedia page. In that example, non-terrorists are analogous to the male population above, terrorists to the famale population. The failures of the system (equal probability of false positives and false negatives) are analogous to male-female and female-male discrimination (also assumed to be equal probability).<br /><br />Where the term &quot;base rate fallacy&quot; comes in, is that many people will assume that if the &quot;base rate&quot; of discrimination is 5% on both sides, then both sides will actually EXPERIENCE the base rate of 5%. This shows that to be a fallacy: one side will experience much more, the other much less.<br /><br />The &quot;Petrie Multiplier&quot; is simply Example 3, applied to different circumstances.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-19747560983214664112013-10-31T13:09:36.583+00:002013-10-31T13:09:36.583+00:00Very good. It applies to any minority discriminate...Very good. It applies to any minority discriminated group and to the detection of any rare occurrence creating many false positives. I thinks it&#39;s classic Bayesian math.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-64490454704647943062013-10-31T08:11:47.563+00:002013-10-31T08:11:47.563+00:00Sorry for being late to the party. Can&#39;t argu...Sorry for being late to the party. Can&#39;t argue with the math, though interesting to question the match with the real world. Main thought would be whether sexist people seek out the opposite group to be nasty too (as Marc also mentions up the page). <br /><br />My suspicion (based on family, friends and taxi drivers with racist attitudes) is that sexists would not store up their remarks for the opposite group and would direct them to who ever was around, expecting positive reinforcement of their views. In addition, I wouldn&#39;t necessarily expect a constant stream of comments so that a person confronted with a member of their target group might make more rather than less attacks. <br /><br />On the positive side, this is a nice model to show the importance of being a minority friend, thereby increasing the effective size of minority group, and reducing the power of the square law. <br />guyhttps://delicious.com/guy75/menoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-23082953475463022042013-10-23T17:58:30.294+01:002013-10-23T17:58:30.294+01:00Ah, that segment you have quoted is *intended* to ...Ah, that segment you have quoted is *intended* to refer to the world of the model. In the model this is a statement of fact. I have no problem accepting it&#39;s worded badly to fail to make that clear. <br /><br />I am trying to reduce sexism, though not actually trying to put up arguments about its cause, well or badly formulated. The point of the blog post is to give one possible explanation how people&#39;s *experience* of sexism can be variant between sexes even if both genders are equally sexist. <br /><br />Anyway I&#39;m sorry I&#39;ve disappointed you. Ian Genthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390523974279353420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-52181891204974831452013-10-23T17:10:01.690+01:002013-10-23T17:10:01.690+01:00Well, if not pseudoscience, it is surely making as...Well, if not pseudoscience, it is surely making assumptions coupled with faulty logic:<br /><br />&quot;And still we get women experiencing dramatically more sexism than men. It&#39;s because of the gender disparity in Tech, and the fact that this multiplies up to the detriment of the minority group.&quot;<br /><br />As well as the assumptions, there could be many other reasons your assertion might be true.<br /><br />For example, have you considered that women experience might experience more sexism because, biologically, men are more predisposed to be sexist (i.e. to draw attention to [supposed or real] gender differences than women are)?<br /><br />The word &quot;because&quot; is certainly a non-sequitor.<br /><br />Again, if you are trying to reduce sexism, it does not help to put up badly formulated arguments about its cause.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-84475990847637750042013-10-23T14:24:36.012+01:002013-10-23T14:24:36.012+01:00Actually just found a mail I sent which might have...Actually just found a mail I sent which might have brought you here which says in part: &quot;to see just one reason why sexism differentially<br />affects women in computing, read my blog post about &quot;The Petrie<br />Multiplier&quot;. So that could be read as saying it bears on reality. Apologies, should have said something like &quot;sexism can differentially&quot; or &quot;might differentially&quot;.<br />Ian Genthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390523974279353420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-49740762400514459822013-10-23T14:13:29.230+01:002013-10-23T14:13:29.230+01:00You are perfectly correct that the sexist remarks ...You are perfectly correct that the sexist remarks rate is constant in this model. But somebody else has a model which takes account of this, and in his model the effect is actually worse, not better. http://www.davidchart.com/2013/10/20/the-petrie-multiplier/<br /><br />I&#39;m not sure why you use the word &quot;pseudoscience&quot;. Inasmuch as this is science (it&#39;s a blog post), it&#39;s a simple mathematical model which has an unexpected effect. The point is to say that in a world where the model applies, this is what happens. That&#39;s not pseudoscience, it&#39;s just a fact. I&#39;ve never claimed this bears on reality.<br /><br />An interesting observation is that many people (I assume to be men but I don&#39;t know) make a point like this, as if somehow the total absence of woman to make sexist remarks is an indication that we don&#39;t have a problem: it&#39;s obviously indicative of a bigger problem.<br /><br />While on the other hand the other critical remark that I most often get (from women or feminist supporting men) is that the basic assumption that women are equally sexist is so far away from reality as to make the whole argument offensive.Ian Genthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390523974279353420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-1751440997788225112013-10-23T13:55:46.025+01:002013-10-23T13:55:46.025+01:00Unfortunately, there is a fallacy in the argument,...Unfortunately, there is a fallacy in the argument, which is that the rate at which sexist remarks are made is independent of the sex ratio itself. Now, it might go up with, or it might go down with, or is more likely to be some complicated function of, the sex ratio - but it is highly unlikely to be constant.<br /><br />Pseudoscience like this does not help to win any arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-1831332791436545432013-10-22T23:06:48.829+01:002013-10-22T23:06:48.829+01:00It took me a little while to double check, but I d...It took me a little while to double check, but I did remember correctly that this was you. Brilliant!<br /><br />http://tim.dreamwidth.org/1762846.html<br /><br />I desperately tried to avoid this mistake in trying to sell the importance of gender imbalance in computing, but I&#39;d be interested in any comments in case I failed. Talking especially about slide 26-28 of the talk linked here. <br /><br />http://iangent.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/the-computer-scientist-and-cleaner-2.htmlIan Genthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390523974279353420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-28367258692035366502013-10-22T22:50:45.446+01:002013-10-22T22:50:45.446+01:00Thanks Tim for dropping by, I&#39;m honoured!
It ...Thanks Tim for dropping by, I&#39;m honoured!<br /><br />It does seem to me, though, that there are two definitions of sexism that you are conflating. Certainly in my idiolect, if a women says &quot;all men are brainless idiots who can&#39;t count&quot;, that is a sexist remark. Obviously it&#39;s that meaning of sexist that the post is about. <br /><br />So your last paragraph is clearly correct, but I didn&#39;t think I was implying that. Ian Genthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390523974279353420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-22129133452394773082013-10-22T17:57:47.460+01:002013-10-22T17:57:47.460+01:00http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Over-sensitive
...http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Over-sensitive<br /><br />http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Many_bad_things_in_the_worldAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-3532751221106498042013-10-22T17:54:45.366+01:002013-10-22T17:54:45.366+01:00Good post. The only thing I&#39;d take issue with ...Good post. The only thing I&#39;d take issue with is the implication that women can be sexist against men. By definition, it&#39;s impossible for a group without power to use power against a group with more power; sexism refers to beliefs about the inferiority of a particular gender that have the power of social, political, religious, and/or violent policing to back them up. In a patriarchy, there is no such thing as sexism against men -- certainly individual women might hold negative beliefs about men, but without the power to systematically oppress men, these beliefs don&#39;t pose a threat to men as a whole. <br /><br />(Not to say that women have no power at all -- for example, white women as a group have power over Black men as a group -- but that reflects racism, not sexism.)<br /><br />Implying that the systematic oppression of women in a kyriarchy or patriarchy is equivalent to a few women thinking unkind thoughts about men trivializes women&#39;s oppression.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-80770183662585237042013-10-21T21:49:51.922+01:002013-10-21T21:49:51.922+01:00I&#39;m not sure about missing THE point, but you ...I&#39;m not sure about missing THE point, but you are missing A key point. <br /><br />A critical assumption is that the (desirable or undesirable) behaviour is related to the minority group. So it is completely true that (e.g.) if Catholics are in a minority then they will experience quadratically more anti-Catholic comments than non-Catholics will experience anti-non-Catholic comments. Because the comments are only directed between the groups. <br /><br />But it is not true that Catholics will experience more sexist comments than non-Catholics. <br /><br />So yes the effect works for any minority and for either positive or negative comments. BUT it only works for comments which are directed only between the minority/majority groups, rather than within a group.Ian Genthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390523974279353420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6915942954402781501.post-25859489725497708502013-10-21T19:28:26.191+01:002013-10-21T19:28:26.191+01:00&quot;The wonderful thing about the Petrie Multipl...&quot;The wonderful thing about the Petrie Multiplier is that there is nothing in it about men being worse people or more sexist than women. And still we get women experiencing dramatically more sexism than men. It&#39;s because of the gender disparity in Tech, and the fact that this multiplies up to the detriment of the minority group.&quot;<br /><br />It&#39;s even more wonderful than that, in that it applies to any minority, and to any attitude – positive or negative – that you might care to consider.<br /><br />For example, you can use precisely the same argument to show that the amount of <i>supportive</i> behaviour experienced by women compared to men increases as the square of the gender ratio; or that in any workforce with a minority of women, the women experience disproportionately more racist behaviour than the men, <i>even if the entire workforce is white</i>; or that in an <i>all-male</i> environment with a minority of Catholics, the Catholics experience quadratically more sexism than the non-Catholics; and so on ...<br /><br />No doubt I&#39;m missing the point spectacularly, but I&#39;m not really sure where that leaves us, except that it shows that intersectionality really is a major issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com